Luz Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)

Citation: Luz Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)
Parent Document: Luz Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1998-12-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/759590/luz-gonzalez-v-lee-county-housin... ↗

Full Text

1,158 chars

The Connick Court thus held that the public concern requirement was satisfied even though Myers did not publicize the questionnaire and even though no evidence indicated that the public, at the time Myers circulated the questionnaire, knew about the District Attorney's unlawful practice of pressuring his employees to work on political campaigns. We reject Moran's contention that Peterson v. Atlanta Hous. Auth., 998 F.2d 904 (11th Cir.1993), indicates a contrary rule. Although Peterson's inter-office speech did concern an issue that had received media scrutiny, see id. at 916, the court specifically noted that public awareness of the problem was not necessary to satisfy the public concern requirement, see id. at 917 n. 25; see also Morgan v. Ford, 6 F.3d 750, 754 n. 5 (11th Cir.1993) ("[A] court cannot determine that an utterance is not a matter of public concern solely because the employee does not air the concerns to the public."); Deremo v. Watkins, 939 F.2d 908, 911 n. 3 (11th Cir.1991) (stating that an employee's effort to communicate her concerns to the public is a relevant, but not dispositive, element in the public concern analysis).

Other Sections in This Document (152)

Full Text